Standing Committee A

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Local Government Bill

Ordered, 
That the Programming Order of 21st January be amended as follows 
 For paragraphs 4 and 5 (consideration and Third Reading) of the programme order of 7th January 2003 relating to the Local Government Bill there be substituted 
 ''4. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days. 
 4A. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table.  TABLE  Day ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings  1stNew Clauses, other than new Clauses relating to Chapter 1 of Part 8 or relating to Clause (Registered social landlords), Clause (Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions) or Clause (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality); new Schedules, other than new Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 8 or relating to Clause (Registered social landlords), Clause (Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions) or Clause (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality); and Amendments to Clauses 1 to 19, Schedule 1, Clauses 20 to 42, Schedule 2 and Clauses 43 to 92The moment of interruption 2ndNew Clauses relating to Clauses 93 to 108, Clause (Registered social landlords) and Clauses 109 to 116; new Schedules relating to Clauses 93 to 108, Clause (Registered social landlords) and Clauses 109 to 116; and Amendments to Clauses 93 to 100, Schedule 3, Clauses 101 to 105, Schedule 4, Clause 106, Schedule 5, Clauses 107 and 108, Clause (Registered social landlords) and Clauses 109 to 116 5 hours before the moment of interruption 2ndNew Clauses relating to Clause (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality); new Schedules relating to Clause (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality); and Amendments to Clause (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality)2 hours before the moment of interruption 2ndNew Clauses relating to Clause (Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions) new Schedules relating to Clause (Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions); Amendments to Clause (Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions), Clauses 117 to 121, Schedules 6 and 7 and Clauses 122 and 123 and remaining proceedings on the Bill.1 hour before the moment of interruption   5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second of the days.''  —[Mr. Woolas.]New clause 13 Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions  'The following provisions cease to have effect—  (a) section 19(3) to (8) of the Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41) (functions of Secretary of State in relation to fire brigade establishment schemes), and  (b) paragraph (a) of section 7(2) of the Fire Services Act 1959 (c.44) (approval by Secretary of State of establishment scheme for fire authority on its becoming, or becoming a successor to, a combined authority).'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]  Brought up, and read the First time.  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 188 to 192. Mr. Raynsford: The amendments remove several powers given to the Secretary of State under the Fire Services Act 1947 relating to fire authority establishment schemes. The repeals are an essential element of the new framework for a modern fire service set out by the independent review chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. As the review identified, our primary objective must be to make the service more responsive to local needs and better placed to deliver community safety. Moving to a flexible, risk-based approach to fire cover offers a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, deaths and injuries from fire, as well as other threats to community safety. As with our wider local authority policies, we will focus on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs. New clause 13 and amendment No. 188 remove the requirement in section 19(4) of the 1947 Act for fire authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making any reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of firefighting posts or fire appliances, or before the closure or relocation of fire stations.  The Government do not believe that in a modern fire service the Secretary of State should take those decisions. We believe that democratically accountable fire authorities should take them, acting on the professional advice of chief fire officers, and after taking account of the views of the local community. That is entirely consistent with the Bill's broad approach to remove unnecessary requirements for consents and to devolve responsibility to local authorities within the national framework set out under the best value arrangements.  Members of the Committee will have seen a briefing paper from the Fire Brigades Union and my letter explaining why the Government are taking forward these repeals now. The briefing paper contends that the Government were under a duty to consult the Central Fire Brigades' Advisory Council about the repeals proposed in the amendments. Indeed, the FBU sought judicial review of our proposals. A High Court judge yesterday dismissed that contention as  unarguable and expressed the view that these were legislative matters before Parliament in which it was not a function of the Court to intervene.  My letter to members of the Committee refers to the concern that removing the need for the Secretary of State's approval to changes in fire cover means that local communities will no longer be consulted. That is not the case. There is no duty on fire authorities to consult under current section 19 powers, but existing guidance makes clear the Secretary of State's expectation that fire authorities will consult local communities and stakeholders about significant changes in fire cover. I should make it absolutely clear that our expectations on consultation will continue unchanged.  The new approach to fire cover recommended by the Bain review is, of course, being considered. But again, any new approach would still necessitate local consultation, and any new guidance would make it clear that the current arrangements for consulting the public, fire service employees and the fire service inspectorate on the reallocation of resources should continue.  Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): What would happen if a fire authority failed to consult properly in the way set out in the guidance that the Government will produce? Mr. Raynsford: The fire authority would be open to the very course of action that I have just describe judicial review because it would be failing to act in the way that any reasonable fire authority should act. I hope that that would not happen. Certainly the fire service inspectorate would want to keep a good watch to ensure that proceedings followed in the way outlined. Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new clause is added to the Bill it will be wise to produce new guidance on consultation, bearing it in mind that some fire authorities will have viewed the fall-back process of a referral to the Secretary of State as effectively negating some part of their duty to take the consultation process seriously? Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I can give him an absolute assurance that it is our intention to issue new guidance. We have reached an understanding with the FBU that there will be consultation with it and with the local authority employers through an ad hoc forum on a range of matters relating to the Bain proposals and other issues that are not being considered within the national joint council for determining pay and conditions. We intend to begin those consultations in the near future, and we will then make more widely available the proposed guidance that the fire inspectorate has prepared. Mr. Davey: Just for the record, can the Minister confirm that the courts could take the guidance that the Government will issue into account in the judicial review of the case of a fire authority that allegedly not consulting properly?  Mr. Raynsford: I am not a lawyer, so I enter the caveat that what I say would be subject to any legal view, but it is certainly my understanding that guidance issued by Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate would be permissible evidence and could well be used in evidence in such proceedings. Under the best value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, fire authorities have a general duty to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. For the purposes of deciding how to fulfil that duty, a best value authority must consult, among others, representatives of persons who use, or are likely to use, its services. In addition to any guidance, there will be the clear presumption, which is embedded in the best value regime, that people who are likely to use the service must be consulted. Obviously, that means the local population that depends on the service. New clause 13 and amendment No. 188 will remove the requirement for fire authorities to provide an annual return on their establishment schemes contained in section 19(3) of the 1947 Act, together with the Secretary of State's powers to make an establishment scheme under section 19(5) and to hold public local inquiries into the exercise of his functions under section 19(8). Fire authorities provide information on their establishments by a number of other means, and that provision is now unnecessary. The Secretary of State's powers to make an establishment scheme represent a degree of central control that no longer rests comfortably with a modern and flexible fire service that responds to locally identified needs and is accountable to the community that it serves. 
TABLE 

 5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second of the days.'' 
 —[Mr. Woolas.]

New clause 13 - Fire brigade establishment schemes:

'The following provisions cease to have effect— 
 (a) section 19(3) to (8) of the Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41) (functions of Secretary of State in relation to fire brigade establishment schemes), and 
 (b) paragraph (a) of section 7(2) of the Fire Services Act 1959 (c.44) (approval by Secretary of State of establishment scheme for fire authority on its becoming, or becoming a successor to, a combined authority).'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 188 to 192.

Nick Raynsford: The amendments remove several powers given to the Secretary of State under the Fire Services Act 1947 relating to fire authority establishment schemes. The repeals are an essential element of the new framework for a modern fire service set out by the independent review chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. As the review identified, our primary objective must be to make the service more responsive to local needs and better placed to deliver community safety. Moving to a flexible, risk-based approach to fire cover offers a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, deaths and injuries from fire, as well as other threats to community safety. As with our wider local authority policies, we will focus on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs.
 New clause 13 and amendment No. 188 remove the requirement in section 19(4) of the 1947 Act for fire authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making any reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of firefighting posts or fire appliances, or before the closure or relocation of fire stations. 
 The Government do not believe that in a modern fire service the Secretary of State should take those decisions. We believe that democratically accountable fire authorities should take them, acting on the professional advice of chief fire officers, and after taking account of the views of the local community. That is entirely consistent with the Bill's broad approach to remove unnecessary requirements for consents and to devolve responsibility to local authorities within the national framework set out under the best value arrangements. 
 Members of the Committee will have seen a briefing paper from the Fire Brigades Union and my letter explaining why the Government are taking forward these repeals now. The briefing paper contends that the Government were under a duty to consult the Central Fire Brigades' Advisory Council about the repeals proposed in the amendments. Indeed, the FBU sought judicial review of our proposals. A High Court judge yesterday dismissed that contention as 

 unarguable and expressed the view that these were legislative matters before Parliament in which it was not a function of the Court to intervene. 
 My letter to members of the Committee refers to the concern that removing the need for the Secretary of State's approval to changes in fire cover means that local communities will no longer be consulted. That is not the case. There is no duty on fire authorities to consult under current section 19 powers, but existing guidance makes clear the Secretary of State's expectation that fire authorities will consult local communities and stakeholders about significant changes in fire cover. I should make it absolutely clear that our expectations on consultation will continue unchanged. 
 The new approach to fire cover recommended by the Bain review is, of course, being considered. But again, any new approach would still necessitate local consultation, and any new guidance would make it clear that the current arrangements for consulting the public, fire service employees and the fire service inspectorate on the reallocation of resources should continue.

Edward Davey: What would happen if a fire authority failed to consult properly in the way set out in the guidance that the Government will produce?

Nick Raynsford: The fire authority would be open to the very course of action that I have just describe judicial review because it would be failing to act in the way that any reasonable fire authority should act. I hope that that would not happen. Certainly the fire service inspectorate would want to keep a good watch to ensure that proceedings followed in the way outlined.

Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new clause is added to the Bill it will be wise to produce new guidance on consultation, bearing it in mind that some fire authorities will have viewed the fall-back process of a referral to the Secretary of State as effectively negating some part of their duty to take the consultation process seriously?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I can give him an absolute assurance that it is our intention to issue new guidance. We have reached an understanding with the FBU that there will be consultation with it and with the local authority employers through an ad hoc forum on a range of matters relating to the Bain proposals and other issues that are not being considered within the national joint council for determining pay and conditions. We intend to begin those consultations in the near future, and we will then make more widely available the proposed guidance that the fire inspectorate has prepared.

Edward Davey: Just for the record, can the Minister confirm that the courts could take the guidance that the Government will issue into account in the judicial review of the case of a fire authority that allegedly not consulting properly?

Nick Raynsford: I am not a lawyer, so I enter the caveat that what I say would be subject to any legal view, but it is certainly my understanding that guidance issued by Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate would be permissible evidence and could well be used in evidence in such proceedings. Under the best value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, fire authorities have a general duty to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. For the purposes of deciding how to fulfil that duty, a best value authority must consult, among others, representatives of persons who use, or are likely to use, its services. In addition to any guidance, there will be the clear presumption, which is embedded in the best value regime, that people who are likely to use the service must be consulted. Obviously, that means the local population that depends on the service.
 New clause 13 and amendment No. 188 will remove the requirement for fire authorities to provide an annual return on their establishment schemes contained in section 19(3) of the 1947 Act, together with the Secretary of State's powers to make an establishment scheme under section 19(5) and to hold public local inquiries into the exercise of his functions under section 19(8). Fire authorities provide information on their establishments by a number of other means, and that provision is now unnecessary. The Secretary of State's powers to make an establishment scheme represent a degree of central control that no longer rests comfortably with a modern and flexible fire service that responds to locally identified needs and is accountable to the community that it serves.

Martin Caton: My right hon. Friend has referred to the letter that we had from the FBU, and he has, in his remarks and in the letter that he sent us, answered some of its criticisms. However, the main criticism that he has not yet addressed is that the present scheme ensures national uniformity and consistency, but repealing section 19 will abolish that uniformity and consistency. Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether we are losing any Government quality control by repealing that section?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very important and fair point. We certainly do not intend in any way to reduce the level of cover and the confidence that the public can have in the effectiveness of the fire service. However, he will understand that a modern assessment of need must take account of the threat to life and today's location of people at risk.
 The problem with the old national standards is that they relate predominantly to property types. For example, if a fire occurs in an empty office block in a town centre in the middle of the night, it is necessary under the existing national standards for two fire appliances to reach the site within five minutes, and a third within eight minutes. However, if a fire occurs at the same time in a house in a suburban area that is occupied by a family whose lives are at risk, the current standard requires only one appliance to attend within eight to 10 minutes. 
 An approach based on property classifications is not the right way forward. There should be a more sensitive assessment relating to the threat to life and the needs of individual people and communities. That can best be developed within each area by those able to make those assessments and within an overall framework set by the national inspectorate. That approach was recommended by the Bain report and is the right way forward.

Edward Davey: It is important that the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) is clarified. As I understand it, the task group on the fire cover review, whose draft conclusions are on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will set the national guidelines for the minimum standards for fire cover. Local fire authorities, in deciding on their own risk management schemes, will have to adhere to those national minimum standards agreed in consultation and with the inspectorate.

Nick Raynsford: The intention is to issue guidance, prepared by Her Majesty's chief inspector of the fire service, to inform individual fire authorities how they should draw up integrated risk management plans along the lines that I described in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. The guidance provided by the chief inspector will form the national framework, which will then inform the preparation of local plans to address local issues.
 In the modern context, that is the correct and proper way to achieve a broad national approach setting out the objectives that need to be met, as well as a local analysis based on a local understanding of today's circumstances and risks. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will accept that that is consistent with our general approach to delivery of services. It is not right for central Government to try to cross every t and dot every i; it is right to set out broad objectives and standards, and to allow each democratically accountable local delivery body to be responsible for putting them into effect in their own area. That is our approach.

Mark Todd: It is worth drawing the Minister further on what would happen if a fire authority were shown by the inspectorate not to be performing its duties. The clause addresses a narrow issue of performance, and one can argue legitimately, as the Minister appears to be doing, that it is not a true measure of how well the fire service is delivering. It would reassure the Committee if the Minister set out how the Government intervene in a case of poor performance that is reported by the inspectorate, which he referred to in his letter.

Nick Raynsford: There are several options. The inspectorate already performs an important function in regularly examining the performance of individual fire brigades and authorities, and that will continue to happen. However, the best value framework, to which I already referred, specifically provides for intervention powers to be available to the Secretary of State when they are necessary because of a failure.
 The Government will not use those powers lightly. We would be accused of being heavy handed by the Conservatives if we did. However, as in the case of other local authorities, we will use the powers on the basis of evidence and advice provided by the Audit Commission for local authorities and by the fire inspectorate for fire authorities when it is clear that they are necessary to ensure that the service is delivered properly and effectively. I hope that that is the safeguard that my hon. Friend was seeking.

Philip Hammond: The Minister gave a long reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but it was not entirely clear. Is he saying that the guidance will contain no prescriptive standards for response times or cover levels but that it will deal with the procedure by which integrated risk management plans are to be developed?

Nick Raynsford: We have undertaken to consult the FBU and the local authority employers on the draft guidance, and I do not want to go further into that at this stage. I hope that the guidance will have been made public by the Report stage, and I will want to ensure that it is available so that we can have a full debate on the issue. I should make it clear that the aim is not to have prescriptive, rigid guidance, such as that on the standards of fire cover for property to which I referred earlier, but to have guidance that is designed to encourage individual fire authorities to develop their own arrangements around the framework that it provides. It is important that the fire service should be able to respond to locally identified needs, and it will be monitored by Her Majesty's fire inspectorate.
 I was talking about the various repeals. The Secretary of State's powers to hold a local public inquiry for the purposes of his function under section 19 are made redundant by the other changes in the amendment, but he will still retain the power to hold a public local inquiry into the manner in which any fire authority is performing its functions by virtue of section 33(1) of the 1947 Act. There will remain a power analogous to the intervention power for those circumstances but not in the limited frame of section 19 related to the level of establishment. 
 New clause 13 also repeals part of section 7 of the Fire Services Act 1959. This provision applies section 19 to fire authorities constituted by a combination scheme. The amendment would repeal the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for the making of establishment schemes by combined fire authorities. Amendments Nos. 189 to 192, which amend clauses 122 and 123, provide for the repeals to take effect on Royal Assent. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has outlined the Government's agenda in seeking to repeal most of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. On this side of the Committee we have no wish to obstruct any genuine modernisation of the fire service. The Minister painted the removal of section 19 in terms of the general thrust of the Bill. As all members of the Committee will know, there is some disagreement
 about whether the Bill's overall effect is to introduce freedom and flexibility to local authorities or whether it is about taking power to central Government.
 Wherever one stands in that debate, it is slightly disingenuous of the Minister to introduce new clause 13 as a provision that accords with the Bill's general principles. If it did, I presume it would have been included from the outset. New clause 13 is clearly a response to events over the past six or seven months, and specifically to the Bain report's recommendations, which the Minister mentioned. The intention as I understand it is that local fire authorities aided and guided by their chief fire officers will produce risk-based assessments, which will be the basis for a redeployment of assets in the way that provides the optimum response to the identified risk. 
 That sounds like a sensible approach. I shall return to the concerns around possible interpretations of that redeployment of resources. On the face of it, new clause 13 removes the Secretary of State's role and delegates to local level decisions about the deployment of fire and emergency cover resources. The guidance the Minister spoke about will direct and inform the preparation of these integrated risk-management plans. 
 The most obvious area where this is needed is a refocusing of attention on lives to be saved rather than property at risk. It is not merely, as the Minister said in his example, that the large commercial properties likely to receive a significant first response compared with domestic properties at night will be unoccupied; it is also the fact that most of them, at least most modern ones, will be well protected by their own fire systems. They usually have on-site security, and good fire alarm and firefighting systems. The world has moved on since 1947, thank goodness. We need to take account of that and try to ensure that our fire service is organised in a way that can maximise the saving of lives at risk. Modernisation of the New Zealand fire service clearly showed that a risk-based reorganisation of a fire service can substantially increase the number of lives saved. 
 That is the good news, but I have one or two concerns. First, will the Minister say something about the proposed time scale for the preparation by all fire authorities of the integrated risk management plans? I understand that local authorities and chief fire officers have already been asked to start work on a risk management-focused approach. I also understand that there will be an opportunity for public consultation before those plans are adopted. I am concerned about the opportunity for public scrutiny of those draft plans. 
 I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the school summer holiday is not, in most people's eyes, a proper and reasonable period for public consultation or scrutiny. I realise that there is some urgency, but I ask the Minister to ensure that the public consultation is held outside the summer holiday season. Let us call it the general election closed season for the reason that people cannot participate in that consultation if they are not around. 
 My second point is blindingly obvious, but I shall make it none the less. Delegating the power to make politically sensitive decisions locally about fire stations, manning levels, levels of cover and response times is in accordance with the overall scheme that the Government say that they are trying to promote. We see much merit in it, but we also have to recognise that hard decisions are sometimes difficult to make locally. As the hon. Member for Gower said, the Secretary of State's involvement may in many cases have been a fig leaf, behind which local politically elected authorities could avoid more difficult and contentious decisions by passing them up to the Secretary of State. 
 The Minister will know that the Fire Brigades Union has already mounted an effective campaign at local level. Firefighters are in the almost unique position of having the sympathy of the communities that they serve. People are predisposed to be sympathetic to their arguments, and they will be in a strong position to exert considerable local influence on the process. That is one of the potential hazards, as well as one of the benefits, of a functioning and flourishing local democracy. On balance, a flourishing local democracy is better than the alternative. I should say to the Minister, however, that I fear that the Government are mistaken if they imagine that they will speed up the process of taking tough decisions by delegating those powers and removing the Secretary of State from the equation. It may be democratic and a good thing, but I suspect that it may cause more delay. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's assessment.

Edward Davey: I believe that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's concerns is that we must not consider the repeal of this section in isolation from a range of other modernisations that will accompany it to ensure better service. That is the real test of modernisation—a better fire service for the public. If we view this move in conjunction with other measures, the hon. Gentleman's concerns can be met.

Philip Hammond: I agree. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we all aspire to a fire service delivering greater levels of safety to the community. However, it cannot have escaped anyone's notice that, although the Government are proposing to delegate responsibilities down to local level and to remove the Secretary of State from the equation, they still control the purse strings. Throughout the negotiations during the fire dispute, we found that he who pays the piper can have a considerable input to the tune. Once the Secretary of State is out of the loop, he no longer has direct political responsibility for decisions taken at local level, but as long as he controls the financial resources available to fire authorities, he will effectively constrain their ability to act.
 If the integrated risk management plans are about starting with a clean sheet of paper, assessing the risks that the community faces and objectively identifying the resources required to address them and the Government are prepared to meet the cost of delivering the resources, it is clearly a positive approach. My concern is that we will not start with a clean sheet of paper but, at best, with existing resources, and re-allocating in a laudable attempt better to deal with the identified risks. 
 Many people are concerned, both inside and outside the House, that modernisation must not become a fig leaf for a cost-cutting exercise. During the course of the fire service dispute, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have said clearly that meeting the existing claim—or any part of it—by the fire fighters above the level of inflation must be self-financing. Approximately 85 per cent. of the fire service costs are for wages and salaries. It takes no great mathematical capability to work out that self-financing must mean higher pay for a smaller number of firefighters. If that is, as it seems to me, the case—the Minister may wish to respond in due course—the integrated risk management plans are not based on a clean sheet in the sense of a zero base, or a redeployment of existing resources, but on a new deployment of fewer resources than at present. 
 In some cases, where the identified risks can be addressed adequately, fewer resources may be appropriate. I would not deny that, but I simply do not have the information. I am concerned, however, that the integrated risk management plan approach will not be seen by the public as a genuinely risk-based resource-blind approach to the problem if it is viewed in conjunction with Government statements that any settlement for the firefighters must be self-financing, which means in practical terms, fewer fire service jobs and fewer resources available. 
 What reassurance can the Minister give the Committee that the resources identified by the integrated risk-management plan as necessary—whether greater or lower than current resource levels—will be made available and properly funded through the usual grant formulas? Will the Government also reassure the public by setting themselves testing targets to reduce loss of life through fire? 
 The reorganisation of the fire service should be set against self-imposed, rigorous targets for a reduction in the overall number of fire deaths—we would prefer targets that do not get dropped the year before a general election—and large percentage reductions in such deaths have been delivered in other countries where fire services have been reorganised. The public would then be greatly reassured that the agenda is about modernisation, and not simply about cutting costs or cutting deployed resources to achieve that same cost but with higher pay for firefighters, which is equally bad from the public's point of view. 
 My next concern is local participation. We must balance a working local democracy with the risk—let us be blunt—that political cowardice may sometimes intervene to prevent appropriate decisions from being made at local level. 
 I have spoken about the substance of the proposals. I now turn to the procedure and how it will be scrutinised. There are serious anxieties about whether it is a genuine move to risk-based resource allocation or just a cost-cutting exercise. There are genuine worries about ensuring that the local community is fully engaged in consultation and participation with the integrated risk-management plans at the outset, 
 and on an ongoing basis, as plans are changed and updated. The Minister said that the Government intend to issue new guidance in due course, but that matter is under discussion with the stakeholder parties in what the Deputy Prime Minister would probably call the fire industry. 
 I understand the Minister's concerns. These are sensitive issues and it is important that Parliament has an opportunity to understand what underlies the primary legislation that we are being asked to approve. 
 The Minister said that he hopes to be able to publish draft guidance to hon. Members before consideration on Report, but we should go further and ask him for an absolute commitment to publish the draft guidance before then. Having said that, it is not immediately obvious that there will be an opportunity for him to table a new clause on Report. Notwithstanding that I said that we broadly support his intentions, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against new clause 13. If we are unsuccessful, I will table an amendment on Report that would reinstate section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. I emphasise that that is not because I love section 19, but because I want him to present his draft guidance to Parliament and to debate it on the Floor of the House.

Edward Davey: May I suggest an alternative route? If the hon. Gentleman is agreeable, I am happy to proceed on a cross-party basis. We could table an amendment to the new clause if it is accepted today. It would require the Government to allow parliamentary scrutiny of guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That would ensure a debate on Report and be more in tune with the policy that the hon. Gentleman supports.

Philip Hammond: I understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and I have also explored whether that route would be workable. I understand that the guidance may not be issued in a form that is susceptible to the usual parliamentary scrutiny—for example, by use of a statutory instrument—but I am willing to explore any practical avenue.
 This is a procedural attempt to give the Minister the opportunity, if he is willing to give such an assurance, to present draft guidance to the House on Report. If hon. Members have had a chance to examine the draft guidance and perhaps to obtain answers to many of the questions about consultation and the resource base for the integrated risk management plans, they will be able to have a more informed debate. 
 I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I hope that there will be the opportunity for a substantive further debate about the issue on Report.

David Borrow: About three or four years ago, there was a proposal by the fire authority in Lancashire to remove one of the retained pumps from Leyland. The consultation by the fire authority was considered inadequate by the local community in Leyland. I lobbied the then Minister with responsibility for the fire service to send the proposal back for further consultation. Although the pump was eventually lost, the local community felt that they had had a proper opportunity to be involved in consultation.
 My concern is that, without seeing the guidelines for consultation that the Minister will have prepared, we could be removing the safeguard that would allow the local community to be part of the consultation exercise. The removal of the clause, and the probable major changes in the fire service to meet the new needs, which may involve the building and construction of new fire stations, but also the closure of old ones, must be handled very sensitively. 
 Local communities find it difficult to recognise that fire cover has been improved if the station based in their community has been moved somewhere else. Over the past 20 years, there have been major improvements in fire cover in my own constituency of South Ribble. However, for me to say that we had extra pumps in Penwortham and Bamber Bridge did not make much difference to the people of Leyland when they saw one of their pumps being removed. 
 It is therefore crucial that the guidance for consultations be robust, and that the local community should have confidence in it. I understand the logic behind this, but I am concerned about the robustness of any consultation requirements. We must get that right before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Patrick Hall: With regard to the public consultation being rigorous, will my hon. Friend tell me what he thinks about the role of local authorities in that process? In the experience that he referred to, was it the first time that consultation took place that he thought that it was inadequate? Did it not include, for example, proper debate at local authority level?

David Borrow: My part of the country is a shire county. Therefore the fire authority covers the whole of the county, and is largely run by members of Lancashire county council, whereas the focus within the community tends to be the small district council. That is where local councillors and local community leaders get involved, and there was a feeling in South Ribble at that time that the district council and their representatives were not given a formal role in an adequate way. It is crucial for that sort of issue to be taken into account when the guidelines are drawn up by Ministers.

Edward Davey: I welcome the new clause, because it is part of a wider agenda to produce a better fire service for the country. My concern about the modernisation debate is that sometimes modernisation is portrayed as a process simply to save money. If that was the case, I would be against it. We should judge modernisation by asking if it will save lives, which must be the key performance measure of whether it is successful. Having read the Bain review and its submissions from the fire authorities, and having looked at extracts from the famous grey book, I have no doubt that modernisation has the potential to save a lot of lives. That is why it must be embraced.
 The firefighters I have spoken to begin the conversation with the FBU line and say, ''Well, if we take away night cover and change the crewing arrangements, and if we do this and do that, it will 
 be very dangerous.'' But when one argues the case clearly and rationally with them they agree; most of them understand the case for reform because they want to save lives. That is why they joined the service; they want to serve their local community. If we embrace the debate about modernisation and reform in a mature, adult way, put the facts on the table and get away from the scaremongering, we will do our communities a great service and liberate firefighters to do what they really want to do: to serve their communities and save lives. The proposal will help, but only in context, with the other reforms proposed. If it was by itself I would have some concerns, but I do not think that that is the Government's intention. 
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made an important point about whether we were creating problems in reform by sending political decisions down to the local level, and we had a helpful exchange on that matter. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with the Fire Services Act 1947 as it is and national Government having a role, there has been no modernisation or reform. Successive Governments have acted in a cowardly manner and not been prepared to embrace reform and modernisation. It is not so much whether matters are considered at local or national level but the overall framework that needs reform. If we reform the framework we can trust local fire authorities, which are accountable to their communities, to get it right. However, it will depend on consultation measures that come from the guidance. That is why the draft guidance is so important, why the Committee needs it before Report and why the House needs it before it sends the measure on its way. I am glad that the Minister has given us those assurances. 
 Consultation should consider the detail of the integrated risk management plans, which is incredibly important as it will drive the process. Should there be a proposal in my constituency to remove a fire appliance or to close a fire station—I am sure that there will not be—I hope that the consultation process will be robust. It is important that all hon. Members think carefully about the matter. There is a lot of cross-party consensus on reform and modernisation, and, as constituency MPs, when we are faced with a decision about a fire appliance going from one of our local stations, an establishment being cut, or a station being closed or relocated, we want to be sure that the framework we set in place allows our local community to get involved in the decision, to ensure that it will improve the local service, not undermine it.

Philip Hammond: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that, in the context of a reduction in total manpower and thus a net loss of resources deployed, it will be difficult to convince the public of the case?

Edward Davey: It is possible. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example, which the Minister touched on in his remarks in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Gower. There would be some reduction in manpower through natural wastage, which would not reduce cover. London is the classic example: because of the requirement and the crewing arrangements in
 the grey book, one often has to ensure that the same number of appliances and firefighters are in a station 24 hours a day, even though the risks change over that 24 hours.
 When there are lots of people in the City of London, there are, rightly, lots of fire appliances and firefighters to provide support for the people working there. However, under the current rules the same number of fire appliances and firefighters have to stay there 24 hours a day, even though those people return at night to the suburbs, including my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The resources to protect them cannot go with them. 
 If we are about saving lives and ensuring that resources are in the right places—where the people are—we need modernisation. That may or may not lead to a loss of staff, but it is not for this Committee or the Secretary of State to judge that, because each circumstance will be different in different towns, cities and regions. That is why the overall thrust has to be right. Key to our job is ensuring that the consultation framework is robust.

Philip Hammond: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman understands by the Prime Minister's statement that any pay settlement above inflation must be self-financing. The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is not for the Secretary of State to determine the level of resources, but does not that statement by the Prime Minister mean that the physical number of firefighters deployed has to be reduced?

Edward Davey: That is a possible implication, but if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall deal with the resourcing issue later. If I do not cover that point, I should be grateful if he would intervene again. I want to focus now on the consultation, which is the nub of the issue before us. We must be sure that all the right people are consulted—the stakeholders and the whole community, not just local councillors and the staff, although they are incredibly important to the process.
 As the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) made clear, if the public do not see a proper and open consultation process, they cannot have faith in it. An interesting point arises from his observations: if the public are engaged and given the full facts, they can often be convinced of the need for change. We should trust the people, as the saying goes. If they have the full facts, they will embrace change, because change is aimed at improving the level of protection. That is the point. If the facts show that the changes will produce that end, people will vote for them, because they will want to be protected more effectively. 
 We need to ensure that the consultation process and the guidance on it ensure that everyone is consulted. We also need to recognise that it is a two-way process. The information that the public and the stakeholders need to make a proper judgment should be made publicly available. The analysis behind the integrated risk management plans needs to be available at the start of the process. People need to be fully informed 
 and to have the facts at their fingertips at an early stage. The Minister will be well aware that many people will try to present the facts in a slightly distorted way, and there might be local campaigns that present the facts in slightly the wrong way. It is very important, if we have a local consultation process, that the facts on which the decisions are made are out in the open from the start. 
 We also need to be clear about how long the process will last. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made an important point: it should not take place over the summer months, when people are not around to go to the meetings and lobby their councillors and members of the fire authority. We must ensure that the consultation is genuine. The Government have to approach the guidance with two stages in mind, because over the next two or three years, we shall see significant changes to our fire services. That is almost like a one-off change. Because there has been a lack of reform for such a long period, if we try to put that right too quickly, there is a danger that the consultation will not be seen as genuine, but as something that was forced through. In producing the guidance for consultation the Minister must be sensitive to the fact that he has asked for an awful lot of change by local fire authorities in a relatively short period. The guidance needs to be particularly aware of that. 
 The guidance must also stand the test of time. There will be a second stage of the guidance's life when there will be ongoing change. The first tranche of changes will make significant alterations, but there will still need to be adaptations as populations move and new towns and communities are built. The consultation must take cognisance of both those objectives. If the guidance can be presented in that way, the Committee can probably agree to it because there will be sufficient local safeguards built into the system. That will be a proper way forward. 
 Our final concern is about resources. That remains a problem partly because, for understandable reasons, the issues of pay and modernisation have come together. That has probably been a good thing for ensuring that the reform agenda is embraced. There is also a danger that linking the two inextricably gives the impression that modernisation and reform are only about saving money. I do not believe that that is right. As I said at the beginning, the drive of modernisation should be about a better fire service. In some areas that might mean more money: we should be honest about that. I am sure that many communities are not getting the level of fire cover that they need. Some areas will need more money. 
 Even in those areas where there may be room for savings, it is often necessary to spend to save. We first must invest in the new buildings, the new equipment and the new fire prevention techniques before we can suggest reducing that bit of fire cover because we know we have the framework in place that guarantees that it can be done safely. The Government said in their most recent statement that there would be transitional funding, but I have yet to be convinced that they have accepted the amount of money that may be required to make this major reform. The Minister may 
 not feel able to do this today, but could he at least indicate that the Government are open-minded about the amounts of transitional funding that may be required to oil the wheels of this significant change?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is still using the term ''transitional'' implying that he accepts that once the system has settled down it will be possible to deliver a better service with fewer resources. Does he accept that?

Edward Davey: I accept that savings can be made through modernisation and reform in some areas, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that too. Our position is driven by the need for a better fire service. That is the test. That might mean more money. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to go away with the impression that, just because I believe transitional funding will be needed, I am arguing that we should cut the money to the fire service. I do not argue that at all. As the Minister said right at the beginning of his remarks, this is not about inputs but about outputs. If we can save more lives and that costs less money, it is a better result than spending more money and saving fewer lives.
 My other major remark is about the distribution of resources, particularly transitional funding, but also longer-term funding. Some fire authorities and services have already begun to embrace modernisation. They tend to be in areas in which there are more retained firefighters, but that is not always the case. We need to be sure that the fire authorities that have reformed and already taken the financial benefits of modernisation will not be penalised. We have asked about that, and the Government have given us nods and winks but never been completely clear. We must be sure that the authorities' pioneering efforts will be taken account of in future grant allocations. 
 I know that I have strayed slightly from the new clause before us, but it is important to see it in the wider context. I hope that in replying the Minister will not restrict his remarks simply to the narrow confines of the new clause.

Nick Raynsford: We have had a full and constructive debate, and I welcome the contributions made by all hon. Members. I shall try to respond to their detailed comments and questions.
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the timetable for the introduction of integrated risk management plans. Local fire authorities have not yet formally been asked to start preparing plans, although I expect them to have started to think about how they will do so when they are asked. As I have already outlined, we intend to consult the Fire Brigades Union and the local government employers about the draft guidance, which, when issued, will initiate the process of preparation. 
 Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, the hon. Gentleman asked about proper public consultation, and I want once again to make it clear that a framework for full and proper public consultation is essential in the development of the 
 local integrated risk management plans and in regular decisions on resource allocation in each fire authority's area. The guidance will make it clear that we believe that that is essential, and I have already given the reassurances sought by Members about how we will address the problem if a fire authority fails to consult. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting question about whether it would be more difficult for hard decisions to be taken at a local level, pointing out that passing the buck to someone else may sometimes be an easy option for an authority that faces strong political pressure against doing something that it believes is right but that is superficially unpopular. If we concede that point, and make it easier for authorities not to take hard decisions, we will never achieve the objective that we all share of effective, responsible and democratically accountable bodies taking the right decisions for their communities. We all know the temptations of trying to get someone else to take a difficult decision, and I accept that that is part of life. However, in the long term, we do not do a service to our democracy if we make it easier for people to duck the responsibilities that they should assume when they hold public office.

Philip Hammond: I agree with what the Minister is saying, but my question was to find out whether he thinks that the changes will speed up a process that has been slow in the hands of Secretaries of State.

Nick Raynsford: I was going to come on to that point via another issue, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised with his comment that the current arrangements have not ensured swift and effective implementation. They do not provide a justification for not ensuring that responsibility is taken at a local level.
 In response to the specific point that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge just raised, my point is that Sir George Bain and his team—it would be wrong not to acknowledge the important contribution of Sir Tony Young and Sir Michael Lyons who were the other members of the report team—recommended this way forward. 
 Other key players, notably the chief fire officers through the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Local Government Association, and many others, all told us in their response to the Bain report and subsequently to our proposal to make this repeal that this is the right thing to do and that it will help speed up decision making. That is the view of those in the best position to make an authoritative judgment. I accept that judgment, although I also accept the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, which is a perfectly natural one. 
 Resources became a major subject for discussion. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that modernisation must not become a fig leaf for cuts. I wholly endorse that view. Modernisation is about achieving a better, safer, more efficient service that responds more effectively to today's needs. 
 There is no question that modernisation will deliver savings in some respects. The enormous variation in the cost-effectiveness of control rooms is one example. Some control rooms covering large areas, such as those in London, are very cost-effective. Others run by small brigades—I shall not name them—incur quite disproportionate costs because they are very small in relation to the number of calls that they receive, and it is simply not cost-effective to keep them staffed to a level necessary to provide cover 24 hours a day. 
 Amalgamating control rooms between brigades or pursuing the option of joint control rooms between the fire service, the police service and the ambulance service would give the scope necessary to deliver a more cost-effective and, in many respects, better service. There is no question of any reduction in the availability of firefighters to respond to incidents, but savings will be delivered that can help meet the costs of any settlement that may result from the negotiations. That is only one illustration of the scope for savings without reducing safety and with the considerable potential benefit of a more efficient service.

Andrew Turner: The Minister is kind enough not to mention any particular local authorities, but the fire service control room in my constituency is very expensive. However, I am very pleased to hear him suggest that it will now be easier to operate joint control rooms, not necessarily with the police service but with services such as the ambulance service, home care and CCTV centres, which could considerably increase the efficiency of the service.

Nick Raynsford: We believe that the Bain report correctly suggests that consideration should be given to joint control rooms or the amalgamation of control rooms run by different fire authorities to achieve improvements in the quality of service. It is not for us to prescribe, but is a matter for each fire authority. I hope that they will consider the option under the proposed arrangements.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has identified an area where he believes that savings may be made, and has outlined a case that supports that perception. Does he also accept that a totally new integrated risk management approach may throw up a requirement for additional resources, perhaps on large suburban housing estates? Does he also accept that if the integrated risk management programmes are to be credible in the eyes of the public, they must be resource blind when they are drawn up? The risk must first be identified, and the resources required to address those risk must then be quantified. Are the Government therefore committed to funding the level of resources required properly to address the risks identified in appropriately drawn up integrated risk management plans?

Nick Raynsford: No plan produced by any public authority can ever be resource blind. Inevitably, one has to take account of the likely available resources. However, I wholly endorse his proposition that the fundamental focus must be on safety, driving down unnecessary deaths, reducing the number of fires and
 producing a better and more effective service. I agree that there will be additional costs in some areas.
 It is likely that a greater focus on fire prevention will increase costs, but if that in turn reduces significantly the number of fire incidents, not only can you save lives through the avoidance of potentially fatal fires, but you can make compensating savings, as you may not need to deploy so many people to intervene in coping with incidents. This is a complex area that needs to be looked at in the round. Safety should be at the forefront.

Edward Davey: Is it not also the case that if the integrated risk management plans put fire prevention at the top of their agenda, as is proposed, that would enable the fire service, in some cases, to earn revenue from advising the commercial sector and providing consultancy on how best to protect its buildings and staff?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Member raises a proper point. The Bain report identifies a number of areas where there may be scope either for cost recovery or some additional earning capacity for the fire service. Clearly that needs to be looked at by fire authorities.

Philip Hammond: The Minister, in his reply to my previous intervention, lapsed into the second person, saying, ''You can do this,'' and, ''You may have to spend more money.'' Will he ensure that the formula by which local authorities receive their Government grant fully reflects the requirements that they identify in their integrated risk management plans?

Nick Raynsford: I will come to that point, and I will in no way duck the question, but I want first to explore further the important issues of saving lives and resource allocation. Two observations often made by people who have looked at fire cover and safety involve the marked variations in the number of incidents at different times of day. One of the Bain report's recommendations is that there should be more flexible crewing arrangements to take account of those variations.
 The second observation is that, despite the fact that there are generally fewer fires at night than during the day, there is no simple day and night curve. The pattern of fire incidence shows the greatest number occurring in the early evening, possibly because of people returning home, cooking and so on. That tails off later in the evening and in the night. The variation is clear to anyone who looks at the figures. 
 Having said that, although there are fewer fires at night, the number of people who die in fires at night is unacceptably high. That leads some to argue that we need high levels of crewing at night. I am afraid that that is a sad and incorrect conclusion, because the reason for the high levels of deaths at night is that many people are overwhelmed by fires that take hold before they are even aware and which begin when they are asleep, or they are overwhelmed by the smoke before they wake up. 
 In those situations the only way to achieve a dramatic reduction in deaths, which we must achieve, is through more effective prevention: getting more smoke alarms into people's houses and dealing with 
 the causes of fires so that they do not occur in the first place, rather than believing that having a large number of people available to respond to fires is the most effective response. That is why an intelligent analysis of how we can reduce the number of fires and deaths and deploy resources to best effect is critical. Having made the point to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that there may be some additional cost from an increased emphasis on fire prevention, I went on to say that there may be some consequential savings if the number of incidents is dramatically reduced. I could continue with many other examples, but I will not.

Patrick Hall: I agree with my right hon. Friend's important point on deaths at night. However, I invite him to return for a second to the question of the maximum ability to save life by looking at the possible dilution of the expertise in the fire and rescue control rooms were they to be amalgamated with police and other control facilities. I was impressed when I visited the Bedfordshire fire and rescue control centre to see that the staff have a crucial role in advising people who have dialled 999, and who may be in a building that is on fire, about how to get out, not to panic and so on. Those crucial steps save lives too. If those skilled people are to be reduced in number or if they are eventually disappear, that is a significant issue.

Nick Raynsford: I did not specifically advocate either solely joint control rooms with other fire services or solely amalgamations between different fire brigades and their control rooms. I said that the two options needed to be looked at. I believe that if one amalgamates the control rooms of two or more fire brigades, one can achieve exactly the same expertise among the crews and control room staff, but one may also achieve more cost-effective solutions. That would be answer.
 It is possible to achieve joint control rooms combining police, fire and ambulance staff with a high level of relevant skills crossing the disciplines. There is a lot to be learned. For example, the police control rooms probably have far greater expertise and skill in coping with a large number of false alarms, not to mention the distressingly high number of hoax calls that still occur. There may be scope for learning from other services about how to filter out calls that generate a response from fire appliances that is unjustified, as they are not genuine or are simply false alarms. 
 Those issues must be looked at by people who are on the ground and understand the needs of the area and who can determine, on the basis of their integrated risk management plan, what is the right way to deal with them. We would not argue for a prescriptive approach. We would not say that one answer is the right answer, but that the issues need to be looked at from the point of view of delivering a high quality service with the proper level of expertise and in a cost-effective way.

Edward Davey: The Minister talked earlier about fire prevention. How do the Government intend to push the take-up and increase the number of properties that
 are protected by smoke alarms and sprinklers? That may be an issue for national Government, possibly through regulations. It may not be something that can be done through integrated risk management plans at a local level.

Nick Raynsford: I believe that there is scope for both a national contribution and local initiatives. There is often nothing better than a suitably experienced person, whether it is a fire fighter or someone trained in fire prevention, visiting vulnerable communities and explaining face to face what needs to be done. No amount of leaflets or publicity programmes run by the Government can equal that, but the Government have a role to play. Publicity undoubtedly has a role to play. The publicity that was arranged before the strikes in the autumn and earlier this year probably played a role in alerting people to the key safety message. The number of incidents that occurred during those strikes reduced.
 Messages about the irresponsibility and criminality of hoax calls also appear to have had an impact because by the end of the last series of strikes, hoax calls were down to around 4 to 5 per cent. That is still an appalling high figure, but it compares with around 15 per cent. at the beginning of the strike period. It is possible to influence opinion and outcomes through national initiatives. We certainly recognise that. Equally, one must see the importance of local, sensitive and targeted intervention to deal with the needs of communities that may be especially vulnerable. Again, there is a high incidence of life-threatening fires among many vulnerable groups, such as those that live in multi-occupied houses, that have very low incomes and that have particular disabilities. This matter therefore requires central and local initiative. 
 I now want to make progress, because I have taken rather a long time to respond to the many questions that were raised. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about targets for cutting deaths. Yes, we have targets, which we review and roll forward regularly. Currently, our target is to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in accidental fire-related deaths in the home over the five years to March 2004, as compared with the average over the five years ending March 1999. We are broadly on track to achieve that target, although the latest figures, which relate to the year ending March 2002, are not encouraging, in that there was an increase in fire deaths during that year. That only reinforces the importance of all that we have said about the need for more focus on reducing fires and therefore deaths. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of learning from overseas experience and driving down the number of deaths. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would make the guidance available to the House before Report. Indeed, we heard an interesting discussion between him and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about the most effective way of ensuring that that happens. I can give a clear undertaking that, barring unforeseen circumstances—I have to say that, although I do not expect such circumstances to 
 arise—it is my firm intention that all members of the Committee and the House should have full access to the draft guidance in good time before we reach the debate on Report. I fully understand if the Opposition believe that, for technical reasons, it is right to move an amendment to reinstate section 19, even if they do not believe that that is the right policy response. That would enable a debate to take place. In that spirit, I hope that we can make progress. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about the concerns in his constituency about the availability of pumps. He rightly focused on the importance of prevention and local consultation. I wholly accept the importance of effective local consultation and the need to engage local communities and for these difficult issues to be faced and discussed. There is a sense of reassurance about the availability of a fire appliance in one's immediate vicinity. People feel strongly about that, and it is right that they should be fully aware of any plans to change arrangements for their deployment. 
 It is also right to discuss with the community how to reduce the incidence of fire, how to improve safety and how best to use the resources available to achieve what we are all determined to achieve—a significant reduction in the number of fire deaths. These issues should not stand in the way of change where it can be demonstrated that change will deliver a better service in the future. 
 I have covered virtually all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised the issue of the funding of any transitional requirements under the pay settlement that may emerge from the negotiations. We have made it clear that it is a responsibility for the employers to negotiate a settlement that is self-financing beyond the sums of money that were already provided for in the initial offer of 4 per cent. last autumn. We understand that there are differential impacts in terms of the scope for delivering savings from modernisation. Some will come more easily in some areas, and some will take longer to deliver. 
 My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are prepared to put in place a reasonable level of transitional funding, provided that he is satisfied that over the period of the settlement, the package is self-financing. That is the right approach to ensure a proper level of financial discipline and the flexibility to cope with the circumstances that I have outlined.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is again talking about transitional financing. To be absolutely clear, is he saying that the cost of delivering all the integrated risk management plans prepared by fire authorities must be overall no greater than the current cost of the service? If so, is he not prejudging the assessment of risk that the plans are required to make?

Nick Raynsford: No, I am talking about any pay settlement that may be reached between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union in the course of the current negotiations. The hon. Gentleman has raised a separate issue about the costs of introducing our
 proposed integrated risk management plans. We have to work within the spending review allocations for the current spending review, but we will examine the implications of proposals going beyond the current spending review period and take them into account when framing the necessary financial allocations for future years.
 As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have had to be flexible to meet additional costs necessitated by providing the military cover during the periods of strike action. We are not a rigid Government who will not consider any additional costs, but a prudent Government who are clear that when there is scope for delivering a more cost-effective and better service, we should pursue those options. We expect to see robust plans to achieve reductions in deaths, improved fire safety arrangements and a better service, and we expect to do so in a cost-effective way.

Edward Davey: The Minister has made an important statement. If I have understood him correctly, he has said that when we look beyond the current spending review period, if the integrated risk management plans show that extra resources are needed to improve fire cover in particular areas, the Government will examine them to see whether money can be found to ensure that the fire protection is improved. Will the Minister confirm that that is what he said?

Nick Raynsford: I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating my response. I said that, but I also added that we would expect authorities to operate in a prudent way to ensure that they delivered services that achieved the safety objectives in the most cost-effective way. It is not wrong to emphasise that those two elements must go hand in hand.
 With that, I think that I have covered all the issues that have been raised by hon. Members. I hope that the Committee will agree that new clause 13 should be added to the Bill.

Philip Hammond: We are running out of time, and I do not want to delay the Committee any further other than to say that there is broad degree of general consensus about the direction in which the Minister is going. However, there are several assurances that Committee members want, and we cannot have a definitive debate or satisfy ourselves finally on the issues until we are able to see the draft guidance. For that reason, I welcome the Minister's almost unqualified commitment to making the guidance available before Report. However, if he cannot do that for any reason, we will have to discuss what happens. It would be intolerable if the House of Commons passed the measure without Members having seen the draft guidance.
 Assuming that we see the guidance, it is necessary for an amendment to be tabled, however bizarre it may appear. Otherwise, as I understand it, the Minister will have no opportunity to secure such a debate. As I said earlier, I will table an amendment, and to maximise its chances of being selected on Report, I need to ask my hon. Friends to vote against new clause 13.

Win Griffiths: That may be debatable.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. It would be helpful to the Committee if we could have your guidance. I am concerned that if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge votes against the new clause, it may prevent him from tabling the amendment that he suggested. If that were to be the case, and the hon. Gentleman's actions were counter-productive, I am sure he would not be happy about it, and neither would I.

Win Griffiths: There is some doubt about that, and we could not say exactly what might happen. We feel that it might not be necessary, but to speed things up we may as well move quickly to the vote, and then we will know that we have not lost the opportunity.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Relief for charities and certain sports clubs

'.—(1) In section 43 of the 1988 Act (occupied hereditaments: liability) for subsection (6) there is substituted: 
 ''(6) This subsection applies where on the day concerned the ratepayer is: 
 1. a charity or trustees for a charity and the hereditament is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes (whether of that charity or of that an other charities); or 
 2. a community amateur sports club within the meaning of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 (relief for community amateur sports clubs) and the hereditament is wholly or mainly used for the purposes of that club.''. 
 (2) In section 45 of that Act (unoccupied hereditaments: liability) for subsection (6) there is substituted: 
 ''(6) This subsection applies where on the day concerned the ratepayer is: 
 1. a charity or trustees for a charity and it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes (whether of that charity or of that an other charities). 
 2. a community amateur sports club within the meaning of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002 and it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for the purposes of that club.''.'. 
 —[Mr. Borrow.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Borrow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 New clause 3 seeks to give the prerogative of charities to those sports clubs that are defined as 
 community amateur sports clubs under the Finance Act 2002. There has been pressure for some years to give assistance either through tax relief or relief from rates to those voluntary sports clubs operating in the local community that are not registered as charities. The 2002 Act set up a category of sports clubs called community and amateur sports clubs. Sports clubs registered under that category were given certain reliefs that were previously only available to charities, as well as access to a £20 million capital fund for which they could bid. 
 At that time, discussions also took place about the possibility of extending a similar scheme on business rates to similar clubs who do not qualify for the 80 per cent. charitable relief under the existing provisions. That was recommended by the Select Committee when it considered the draft Bill, and early-day motion 702, signed by 151 Members, supported such a provision. 
 That is the background to new clause 3. Its effect would be to allow those amateur sports clubs that have registered under the scheme laid down by the 2002 Act to qualify for 80 per cent. relief, as charities may do at present. I understand from discussions I have had with Ministers that the provisions in clause 63 of the Bill, which covers small business relief—50 per cent. relief up to £3,000, and a sliding scale for rateable values from £3,000 to £8,000—would be beneficial to many such sports clubs. That is undoubtedly the case. However, I am aware from discussions with a number of colleagues, and from representations that I have received from sports clubs and their representative bodies that clause 63 does not go far enough and that many clubs, particularly amateur clubs with extensive capital assets but a relatively small turnover, would not benefit from it.

Edward Davey: Is it not even worse because larger community sports clubs might face higher rate bills because the clause is to some extent self-financing?

David Borrow: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The clause is supported throughout the Committee and among the sporting community more widely. I hope that when the debate comes to an end, my hon. Friend—

Brian Iddon: Do not clubs that favour water sports face a particular difficulty, because they are on riversides in grand areas where the rateable values are higher?

David Borrow: One problem is that sports clubs with considerable outdoor or indoor facilities have often acquired them through lottery grants or gifts, but rely on voluntary contributions to maintain them. Comparison with business rates is difficult because the sports clubs often do not have the turnover. I see that we are running out of time, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to make some encouraging noises at the end of the debate.

Edward Davey: I support this good proposal on behalf of my party. I had the good fortune—or misfortune, I am not sure which—to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill last year, which introduced the legislation to which the hon.
 Gentleman referred. During the debates in that Committee the same point arose. When the Government spoke about providing tax relief for sports clubs in the run-up to the previous election, many treasurers across the country realised that the sort of measures tabled by the hon. Gentleman today were what the Government had in mind. Any tax relief is welcome to a struggling local community sports club, but the measures in last year's Finance Act did not go anywhere near as far as people believed that the Government intended. The proposal before us comes at an opportune time and provides the Government with a chance to go as far as people were led to believe that they intended.
 It is a fine proposal. According to a briefing from Sport England, the amount of money required to make it possible is, after taking account of existing discretionary relief and the linked refunds from central pool, an additional £10 million per annum. Although not insignificant, it is not a huge amount and the £10 million would be well targeted at the local grassroots sports clubs up and down the country. Hon. Members will have a range of such clubs in their constituencies. They will know from their own experience that many of these clubs exist hand to mouth. The funds from this relief, however small, could be vital to help them to survive, grow and invest in the youth of local communities. 
 I hope that the Minister will give the new clause a fair hearing. It is likely that he will reject the clause—I hope I am wrong—because he does not have the Treasury's permission to grant the relief. The usual way of things is that the Chancellor stands up on Budget day and announces a range of goodies for everyone. This Chancellor is kind to Labour Back Benchers, for whatever reason, so he might look kindly on the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for South Ribble. However, I suspect that he would be the one to announce the measure if he wanted to go down this road. 
 If the Under-Secretary is not going to accept the new clause today, will he undertake to go to No. 11 or Treasury Chambers and tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much support there is for the measure and to see whether this could be an early Budget submission? Will he assure us that if we cannot vote on the new clause today, we will not have to wait too long before community amateur sports clubs can enjoy this much needed extra relief?

Philip Hammond: I concur with most of what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. In the Committee that considered the Finance Bill to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) supported amendments with a similar thrust to reduce the burden on community amateur sports clubs. We are talking about sums of money that are small but that would have a significant impact on the beneficiary bodies.
 I urge the hon. Member for South Ribble to read the Committee debates on what became the Finance Act 2002, if he has not already done so. He will find that some of the issues about the possible benefits of the small business relief and its applicability to 
 community sports club were debated then. The differences between businesses and community sports clubs were adequately discussed. There is clearly a need to address the specific problem that many community sports clubs will not be able to benefit from the reliefs targeted on small businesses. 
 I, too, share the scepticism expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but I hope that by taking up another couple of minutes of the Committee's time I will have helped the Under-Secretary to be able to report to the Chancellor that there was genuine all-party, all-member support in the Committee for the proposal.

Christopher Leslie: I was wondering why it fell to me to respond to the new clause, and the many reasons have begun to hit me.
 This has been a short but worthwhile debate, and there have been significantly strong points about the virtues of giving support to community amateur sports clubs that do a great deal of important work in most of our constituencies, especially in engaging young people and the wider community, in particular the more disadvantaged communities, and involving them in community activity in general. In that sense, the motivation behind the new clause is good. I regret to say, however, that we cannot accept it for several reasons. 
 In recent years, there have been positive moves towards providing significant help to community amateur sports clubs. In November 2001, the Charity Commission announced a change in the definition and that it was more predisposed to allow community amateur sports clubs to be defined as charities if they promoted community participation and health recreation by providing facilities for particular sports. If they are more able to qualify as charities, they can receive 80 per cent. mandatory relief from their rates. There is already a great opportunity for community amateur sports clubs. It would be difficult to give those sports clubs extra treatment towards that mandatory relief outwith the usual charities arrangement as opposed to other organisations that might equally be virtuous.

Edward Davey: I am sure the Under-Secretary knows that that is exactly the point that generated the clause. When we were debating this issue in Committee on the Finance Bill last year, it became clear that many community and sports clubs did not want to go down the charity route because it put them into a part of the law that was burdensome on the people running those clubs and some of them described that route to Committee members as bureaucratic and onerous.
 The idea was that with a clause such as that tabled by the hon. Member for South Ribble one could ensure that a new group set up under the Finance Act 2002 could get the same benefits as those sports clubs that felt able to go for charitable status, thus providing a level playing field. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Christopher Leslie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I added at the end that not all sports clubs would
 necessarily want to go down that route. However, it is a new opportunity if they want to obtain the rate relief qualification. I am more reluctant to allow particular exemptions and anomalies for specific organisations. It would be better to apply rate relief schemes more generally. That is why the small business rate relief scheme in the Bill will significantly help many sports clubs. I accept that about half the sports clubs we know about will be able to benefit from the provision, but nevertheless it is a significant step forward in giving extra help to sports clubs.
 Also, as has been pointed out, the Finance Act 2002 has given welcome generous tax relief on income and donations to community amateur sports clubs. Local authorities too have discretion to give 100 per cent. relief to non-profit bodies, so a number of routes are already available to amateur sports clubs. I can understand the sentiment behind new clause 3, but we need to see how some of the more recent initiatives benefit the sports clubs before we review the suggestions made in this new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that argument and withdraw his new clause.

David Borrow: I listened to my hon. Friend's comments with interest. I am aware that if one is trying to get money out of the Treasury for a good cause, it often takes a while and it is better done on an all-party basis and with community support. That was the basis on which the existing relief in the Finance Act 2002 was gained. We may have to push this matter a little further to get a result. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to return to the issue on Report and Third Reading and I would not wish to deny them the opportunity to do so by causing a Division at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8 - Amendment of Local Government Act 2000 (Scrutiny Function)

'(1) The Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 24 (absence of requirement for political balance)— 
 (a) there is inserted after ''local authority executive'' (where it appears for the second time) the words ''nor (c) (save as in subsection (2) below) a scrutiny committee,''; and 
 (b) after ''groups) applies'' is added— 
 ''(2) When calculating the allocation seats to political groups on scrutiny committees those members of the local authority who are members of its executive shall be disregarded.''. 
 (3) After section 29 (operation of and public policy for, executive arrangements) there is inserted— 
 ''29A. Scrutiny Committee Chairmanships 
 The proportion of chairmanships of scrutiny committees on a local authority held by each of the parties represented on its executive shall not exceed the proportion of seats held by each of those parties on that authority.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 9—Amendment of Local Government Act 2000 (Standards)— 
'(1) The Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 53 (standards committees)— 
 (a) in subsection (4) the words ''(a) at least two members of the authority, and'' are omitted; and 
 (b) in subsection (5) the words ''executive leader, and (b) may not be chaired by'' are omitted.'.
 New clause 15—Special responsibility allowances— 
'. Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) is amended as follows— 
 In subsection (1)(c), for the words ''any such member who has'' there are substituted the words ''not more than one-quarter of the members of the authority, provided that they each have.''.'.

Andrew Turner: I am pleased to speak to these three probing new clauses. I want to find out the Government's view on three aspects of the implementation of the Local Government Act 2000, which seemed to be mild abuses of that Act running contrary to what may have been the Government's best intentions in that respect.
 New clause 8 is about the scrutiny function, which is central to the effective operation of the Government's new arrangements for local government. It is particularly important that the council's majority party does not dominate the scrutiny process to the extent that scrutiny is ineffective. If I draw attention to the arrangements in my local authority, it is not to suggest that it is the only local authority to go down that road or that only local authorities of that political persuasion have gone down a road that is contrary to the best wishes of the Government. 
 My local authority has 31 members in its ruling group and 18 opposition members, but the ruling group has chosen to take all the chairs of all the scrutiny committees and to ensure that all places on the scrutiny committees are allocated in proportion to the council membership, so that the governing group has a majority on the scrutiny committee. My first suggestion is simply that in section 24 of the Local Government Act 2000, the requirement for political balance on local scrutiny committees should be amended by disregarding members of the council's executive from the calculation. My second suggestion is that the scrutiny committee chairmanships should be allocated in proportion to the council membership, in much the same way that we allocate chairmanships of Select Committees in this place. 
 New clause 9 deals with a similar possible abuse—of standards committees—that the Government did not want to happen. I am pleased to say that my local authority had a standards committee well before 1997, and it was amended in 1998 to ensure that its composition did not include any councillors. From 1998 until the implementation of the Local Government Act 2000, the standards committee 
 membership was entirely independent of the local authority. Its nomination process was also independent, because nominations were made by the magistrates and district judges, the lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants, the Association of Town and Parish Councils and other bodies that, for the time being, I forget. 
 The point is that the process did not involve councillors or ex-councillors. My proposal, which is merely permissive, is that standards committees no longer have to include councillors. That would be done by the removal of subsection (4)(a) of section 52 of the Local Government Act 2000. That would enable the Isle of Wight council and other local authorities to have standards committees that include no councillors. Furthermore, it is wrong for members of the executive, who have considerable additional delegated powers under the new arrangements, also to be members of the standards committee. It is more likely that members of the executive will be subject to allegations than others.

Edward Davey: I am interested in some of the hon. Gentleman's ideas on reforming standards committees, because such committees throughout the country are being abused. False allegations are being heard, and the processes that they are adopting are not due and fair. Will he comment on that? Does he think that new clause 9 would be sufficient to reform such abuses of standards committee procedure?

Andrew Turner: I am not sure that it is possible to reform a process of false allegations being made. The nature of things is that, if we set up a remedy, there is a danger that false allegations will be made, which the Committee must consider. I do not say for one moment that new clause 9 would solve that problem, but it would be a start to the improvement of the standards committee process. That may be a disappointing answer, but it is the best answer that I can honestly give in relation to the shape and drafting of the new clause.
 New clause 15 deals with a third abuse. Again, I refer to my local authority only because I know it well. On my local authority half of all the members have special responsibility allowances. No more than two of those are outside the ruling group. In other words, something like 22 out of the 30 members of the ruling group on the authority receive special responsibility allowances. 
 I fear that those special responsibilities prove a particularly welcome means of maintaining the coalition that is the ruling group on my local authority: a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and many of those who are elected as independents. It is an abuse for such a large proportion to receive special responsibility allowances. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) says, ''Jobs for the boys.'' I am sure that he is right, although there are some girls as well. It should not be necessary for more than, say, a quarter of local authority members to receive special responsibility allowances. 
 I understand that the new clauses fly in the face of the Government's and, for that matter, the 
 Opposition's policy of not interfering in the operation of local authorities, but it is necessary to seek out possible abuses and to try to remedy them. Do the Government recognise that what I describe may be abuses? Might action, or indeed guidance, be given in future on ways to improve the operation of local authorities?

Christopher Leslie: I sense that the Committee wishes to dispatch business as speedily as possible, so without any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman I shall address the points that he raised as efficiently as I can.
 New clause 8 has three particular proposals, the first of which is that scrutiny and overview committees need not have the proportionate political balance. The Government believe that the scrutiny process, as with any other process, needs to be democratically informed and accountable, and that is why we have made the political balance requirement apply to scrutiny committees. That is an important principle. 
 If there were no political balance requirement in scrutiny committees, the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman wants could happen. There would be nothing to stop the majority party taking all the seats on the scrutiny committee, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want that.

Andrew Turner: I fear that the Minister may have misunderstood the new clause, or my drafting may be deficient. It seeks to amend section 24 of the Local Government Act 2000 by adding subsection (2), which states:
''When calculating the allocation of seats . . . on scrutiny committees those members of the local authority who are members of its executive shall be disregarded.''—
 but not the rest. That is the part that matters.

Christopher Leslie: I was coming to that. The executive does not necessarily form the whole of the majority party, so that does not quite overcome my objection. Executive councillors cannot serve at all on scrutiny committees, but if the executive members were excluded from the calculation of the proportion of the political balance for scrutiny committees, I would be worried that effectively, and in an indirect sense, the constituents of those executive members would essentially be disfranchised from being represented in the scrutiny process.
 That may best be illustrated by analogy with our House of Commons where the proportions of those appointed to our own scrutiny bodies do not exclude those who form the Executive. If they were to do so, it would cause all sorts of difficulties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can see some difficulties in his suggestion, but it is a brave attempt. 
 The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the majority party should be constrained from exceeding its proportionate share of scrutiny committee chairs. As I said, executive councillors cannot be chairs or members. While I am sympathetic to the notion, it would be too constraining on the freedom of councils to choose their own chairs if we put that in primary legislation. Indeed, it is not always a bad thing for councillors from the majority party to sit on and chair the scrutiny committees. As we know ourselves, chairs from the majority party are perfectly willing to criticise 
 and scrutinise their own party. It is not quite as axiomatic as he makes out. 
 New clause 8 suggests that there should not be a minimum councillor requirement on the standards committees and that executive councillors should not sit on standards committees. I believe that we should have representation of councillors on standards committees precisely so that local authorities can own the standards process. If the standards process were outwith those who are among the number for whom the standards are being applied, I would be concerned that legitimacy in relation to the numbers on the local authority would be jeopardised. That is why we have the provision in the legislation in the first place. 
 The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that this would be a prescriptive move, but I am sure he knows that we already have regulations to prevent there being more than one executive member on a standards committee. As I said before, executive councillors are nevertheless councillors, so they should have the opportunity to have their interests reflected in the composition of a standards committee if the local authority feels that that is the appropriate route to take. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press that new clause. 
 New clause 15 suggests that only a quarter of councillors in any authority should be able to qualify for special responsibility allowance. Again, we feel that that would be too prescriptive. If he feels that the situation is wrong in his local authority, local electors will need to be informed about that and to hold local councillors to account on those matters. We believe that councils should decide those matters. We already have a good framework for regulating who can qualify for special responsibility allowances. The hon. Gentleman may want to study that and to look at those regulations. With that framework in place we do not believe that this step is necessary. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's points effectively. I urge him to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathy for the notion of one my proposals. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14 - Regulation of body piercing establishments outside London

'The Local Government Act 1988 (c.9) is amended as follows:— 
 After section 36 insert— 
 ''36A Regulation of Body Piercing Establishments outside London 
 (1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this section coming into force, by regulation make provision for the extension of powers under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 to regulate establishments carrying out body piercing to those local authorities outside London that wish to have such powers, with such modifications and amendments as the Secretary of State shall prescribe. 
 (2) Regulations made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.''.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I am grateful to members of the Committee for facilitating speedy conclusions of the last couple of debates so that we could have this brief debate. I have already said a little about this and I had the opportunity to have some discussions subsequently with the Minister. I have no personal direct experience of body piercing. I find it difficult enough to keep going with what I have got and fear that at my advanced years if I started to take bits away it could have disastrous consequences. 
 Many young people experiment with body piercing. It is now a relatively common fashion experience. I first became involved in this issue because a constituent of mine had an especially distressing experience when her 14-year-old daughter came home with her navel pierced. Being the kind of mother she was, she immediately set off to the emporium that had carried out that process, brandishing her cudgels, only to find out that the people there were, frankly, not interested in her concerns, and that neither the local authority nor the police were willing or able to do anything. 
 That mother was advised by the police, on the ground that her daughter was under 16, that the piercing of her daughter's body could be construed as a common law assault and that she should consider taking out a private prosecution, which is obviously a fairly elaborate process. She came to me at that stage and I asked the Library to research the current state of affairs, which is rather strange. Local authorities in Greater London have quite considerable powers to regulate and to license premises for what is called in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 special treatment. That not only includes cosmetic body piercing, but tattooing, understandably, and, perhaps not quite so obviously, massage, manicure, acupuncture, chiropody, and light, electric and other special treatments. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions about those. 
 Outside London, local authorities do not have any analogous powers. I had already discussed with my hon. Friends the possibility of tabling a new clause to the Bill before Second Reading to see whether the Government were amenable to the idea that regulatory powers needed to be extended. We had reason to believe that they would be, because in January 2000 the then Minister with responsibility for health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), acknowledged that the Government believed that primary legislation should be introduced to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate the hygiene and cleanliness of cosmetic body piercing businesses, when parliamentary time allowed. 
 I am glad to say that I have raised the issue with the Minister, that the authorities have determined that the matter is within the scope of the Bill, and that parliamentary time now allows. I hope that the Minister agrees that the scope of powers that local authorities need goes slightly wider than regulating the 
 cleanliness and hygiene of premises. That is so issues about consent can be taken in, and to ensure that people under 16 have proper parental consent, perhaps through the use of codes of conduct that premises must adhere to. Since I embarked on the process, several responsible body piercing establishments have contacted me at pains to point out that they and many such establishments operate regimes for obtaining written consent from parents and take such matters seriously. As usual, of course, in introducing a regulatory power we are not dealing with the responsible majority but addressing the irresponsible minority to ensure that it complies. 
 The matter has subsequently been given added urgency and importance by the tragic death of Daniel Hindle in Sheffield just before Christmas. Daniel, who was 17, had his lip pierced in October. To the external observer, he was an apparently healthy young man, but sadly he had a congenital heart defect. Although I did not know this—I certainly know it now—people with such a condition are 10 times or more likely to contract septicaemia from a process of that nature. There is therefore a need to ensure that establishments that carry out such processes not only are regulated on hygiene, cleanliness and consent for people under 16, but are properly informed and understand the potential consequences of the procedures that they carry out. Such establishments should also have in place appropriate mechanisms for drawing the risks to the attention of potentially vulnerable people, such as those with health conditions that are undetectable to the eye, for whom body piercing may be a dangerous option. Daniel's death has highlighted the urgency of the need for action. 
 I readily accept that the new clause is imperfectly drafted and probably not wide enough in scope. I started by trying to amend the London Local Authorities Act 1991, but the relevant provision in that is some 10 pages long, fiendishly complicated and beyond the scope of anyone other than a professional draftsman. I therefore hope that the Minister will take the new clause in the spirit in which it was tabled, and undertake to use the far more serious resources of the Government to return at a later stage in the Bill's progress with a measure that will address the issue. It is not party political. 
 I seek permissive powers for local authorities outside London to introduce a light-touch regulatory regime to ensure that the type of tragedy that occurred in Sheffield in December does not occur again, and that young people having parts of their bodies pierced—we in our dotage may or may not recognise that as very sensible—are not put at risk of such a terrible outcome. I am entirely flexible as to how best that can be achieved. If the Minister assures me that the Government will address the matter later in the Bill's progress, I will be delighted to seek leave to withdraw the motion.

Nick Raynsford: I am somewhat alarmed by the hon. Gentleman's frequent references to being in his dotage. He is a rather sprightly, youngish man, and it leaves me worrying whether I am in the afterlife. Seriously, I thank him for tabling the new clause on this important issue. We are sympathetic to his concern that local
 authorities outside London should have powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. Indeed, we are on record as saying that we intend to provide for that. He quoted the then Minister for Public Health as saying so a little while ago.
 With regard to the sad death to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we understand that Sheffield city council is investigating it carefully, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage. I understand that a direct link with the lip piercing has not yet been established, but that is neither here nor there. It is obviously a cause for concern and it is important that the case is thoroughly and properly investigated. 
 The new clause, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, would not be effective in achieving his objective. The London Local Authorities Act 1995 is a private law, and its scope cannot be extended beyond local authorities in London. Section 36 of the Local Government Act 1988, to which the new clause refers, was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993. 
 In any event, imposing a licensing regime on local authorities outside London would result in two different regulatory regimes for skin piercing activities outside London: a registration and byelaws regime for ear piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture, and a licensing regime for body piercing. That duplication would be in no one's interests and could lead to confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy and burdens. 
 We also need to consider the wider issues, such as micro-pigmentation and semi-permanent cosmetics. I am not expert in these matters, but I understand that it is important that a policy to address them should be comprehensive. I think that the hon. Gentleman also recognises that. It requires further discussion with colleagues, so we cannot act immediately, but I give him the assurance that he is seeking: the Government will introduce legislation when the opportunity arises. Parliamentary time may not allow such a measure to be introduced in this Bill, but I hope that the issue will be resolved without unreasonable delay, because it is important. It needs to be resolved expeditiously. On that understanding, I hope that he will withdraw the motion.

Philip Hammond: I am very disappointed by what the Minister has just said, which was not what I was expecting him to say. I understand that the Government want to widen the scope of the measure. I would readily accept that it might not be possible to do that until the Bill reaches the Lords, but I understood the Minister to say that it may not be possible to do it within this Bill. In other words, the Government are reverting to the position that they took in January 2000 and saying that they will do it when parliamentary time allows. That is, frankly, not good enough.
 Such a measure would be within the scope of the Bill. The Government made a commitment in January 2000, but they did not follow up on that and include a provision within the original Bill to deal with cosmetic body piercing. To say now that it may take too long to 
 include it in this Bill, and that we will have to wait until another legislative opportunity arises—goodness knows when that may be—is disturbing. 
 I ask the Minister to undertake to chivvy his colleagues along a little, so that in the next four or five weeks, while the Bill is in Committee or on Report in the Lords, an appropriate measure can be inserted.

Nick Raynsford: I will certainly do my best to chivvy along my colleagues in other Departments, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, but it would be unrealistic to raise expectations about the possibility of an amendment being introduced during proceedings on the Bill in this House. I will look into whether it may be possible in another place and write to him, but he will be aware of the enormous pressures that we are under in relation to the timetable. In my view, it would not be realistic to expect such an amendment to be introduced in the Commons.

Philip Hammond: I accept that it will not be possible in this House, because of the time available. The reassurance that I was seeking from the Minister was that the Government would introduce something during consideration in the other place. That does not seem unreasonable. I have no choice but to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the motion because, as the Minister has pointed out, the new clause is imperfectly drafted. I was hoping to be able to leave the issue in the capable hands of the Minister on the assurance that something would be introduced in the Lords. I have not been give that assurance. Therefore, I will have to seek, with my noble Friends in the other place, help from outside experts to draft an Opposition new clause for the Lords stage, in the event that the Government are not able to introduce something in that time. I am disappointed that I have to do that, but that appears to be the way it has to be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17 - Provision of services by parish councils

'.—(1) This section applies to a service or amenity which, within the same local government area, is provided in some areas by a parish council and in other areas by the local authority (a ''relevant service''). 
 (2) The accounts of a local authority by whom expenditure is incurred on a relevant service shall include a separate account of that expenditure. 
 (3) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring a local authority by whom expenditure is incurred on a relevant service to calculate a different rate of council tax for parish council areas where the relevant service is provided by the parish council from the rate calculated in areas where the relevant service is provided by the local authority. 
 (4) Regulations made under subsection (3) above shall require the level of council tax in areas where the relevant service is provided by the parish council to be less than the level in areas in which the relevant service is provided by the local authority, such that the difference between the aggregate amount of council tax charged in the different areas is equivalent to the cost to the local authority of providing the relevant service. 
 (5) Regulations made under subsection (3) above shall make provision for cases in which more than one relevant service is provided by the same local authority, and for cases in which a 
relevant service is provided by a local authority only in some of the areas in which it is not provided by a parish council. 
 (6) Regulations shall not be made under subsection (3) above until a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. 
 (7) In this section— 
 (a) ''local government area'' means a county, Greater London, a district, or a London borough; and 
 (b) ''relevant service'' includes any service or amenity which may be provided by a parish council under any enactment or instrument including, but not confined to— 
 (i) the Local Government Act 1894, 
 (ii) the Parish Councils Act 1957, and 
 (iii) Part III of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.—[Mr. Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This is a simple new clause, although it is quite lengthy. It remedies the injustice whereby there is a mix between parished and unparished areas in a local authority area. In my area, one third of the population lives in unparished areas and two thirds in parished areas. The local authority chooses, as is within its power, to levy an additional rate within unparished areas to provide services in the unparished areas that in the parished areas are provided by the parish council. The new clause simply requires that the local authority keep a record of its expenditure on such services in unparished areas and levy a rate accordingly.

Christopher Leslie: I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, but we are not able to accept the new clause. There is no widespread evidence of a massive problem or concern about the issue. I recognise that there is a potentially anomalous situation, but we believe that to regulate is too prescriptive. I am sympathetic to his worry, but we would rather that good practice and guidance overcame any problems. There is a provision for special expenses procedure for district councils and billing authorities, which they can use at their own discretion to overcome the problem.

Win Griffiths: As the knife is about to fall, I invite the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question proposed, That clauses 117 to 121 stand part of the Bill. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 117 to 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments proposed: No. 132, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 22, leave out 'by statutory instrument'.
 No. 133, in 
schedule 6, page 101, line 11, leave out paragraph 51 and insert— 
 '51 (1) Section 113 (orders and regulations) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In each of subsections (1) and (2) (powers to make regulations or orders under the Act include power to make differential and incidental etc. provision), for ''or the Treasury'' there is inserted '',the Treasury or the National Assembly for Wales''. 
 (3) In subsection (2), for ''or they think'' there is substituted '', they or it thinks''. 
 (4) In subsection (3) (instruments subject to negative resolution), in paragraph (a) (exceptions), after ''11(3),'' there is inserted ''22B(3)(a),''. 
 (5) After subsection (3) there is inserted— 
 ''(4) Any power of the National Assembly for Wales under this Act to make orders or regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.'' '.
 No. 134, in 
schedule 6, page 101, line 37, leave out 'by statutory instrument'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill. 
 Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 - Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 188, in 
schedule 7, page 105, line 30, at end insert— 
 'Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41) Section 19(3) to (8) 
 Fire Services Act 1959 (c.44) In section 7, subsection (1) and, in subsection (2), paragraph (a).'.
 No. 10, in 
schedule 7, page 105, line 38, at end insert— 
 'Local Government Act 1986 (c.10) section 2A'.
 No. 135, in 
schedule 7, page 106, line 2, leave out 'Section' and insert 'Sections 28 and'.
 No. 136, in 
schedule 7, page 106, line 37, leave out 'and 50(6)' and insert ',50(6) and 52Z(3)'.
 No. 137, in 
schedule 7, page 107, line 3, at end insert— 
 'Education Act 1996 (c.56) In Schedule 1, paragraph 5.'.
 No. 138, in 
schedule 7, page 107, line 10, at end insert— 
 'School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31) In Schedule 30, paragraph 13.'.
 No. 139, in 
schedule 7, page 107, line 26, at end insert— 
 'Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) Section 104.'. 
 —[Mr. Raynsford.]
 Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 122 - Commencement

Amendments made: No. 189, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 1, after '112,' insert 
 '(Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions),'.
 No. 190, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 3, at end insert— 
 '( ) Schedule 7, so far as relating to— 
 (i) the Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41), and 
 (ii) the Fire Services Act 1959 (c.44), 
 and section 121(2) so far as relating thereto.'.
 No. 8, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 9, leave out 'and 114' and insert 
 ', 114 and (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality)'.
 No. 140, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 12, at end insert— 
 '( ) section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (c.9),'.
 No. 9, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 12, at end insert— 
 '( ) section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c.10)'.
 No. 141, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 18, leave out 'and' and insert— 
 '( ) paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996 (c.56), 
 ( ) paragraph 13 of Schedule 30 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31),'.
 No. 142, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 20, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) section 104 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c.22),'.
 No. 184, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 24, at end insert 
 '108, (Registered social landlords)(3) and (4), 109 to'.
 No. 185, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 27, at end insert— 
 '( ) section (Registered social landlords)(1), so far as relating to registered social landlords for which the Housing Corporation is the Relevant Authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996;'.
 No. 186, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 39, at end insert— 
 '( ) section (Registered social landlords)(1), so far as relating to registered social landlords for which the Assembly is the Relevant 
Authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996, and section (Registered social landlords)(2);'.
 No. 143, in 
clause 122, page 69, line 49, at end insert— 
 '( ) So far as relating to Scotland, sections 101 and 102 shall come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by order appoint.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
 Clause 122, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123 - Short title and extent

Amendments made: No. 144, in 
clause 123, page 70, line 16, leave out 'Section 83(2) extends' and insert 
 'Sections 83(2), 101 and 102 extend'.
 No. 191, in 
clause 123, page 70, line 34, leave out 'and 112' and insert 
 ', 112 and (Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions)(a)'.
 No. 192, in 
clause 123, page 70, line 36, leave out 
 'entry in Schedule 7 relating to' 
 and insert 
 'entries in Schedule 7 relating to— 
 '(i) the Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41), 
 (ii) section 7(1) of the Fire Services Act 1959 (c.44), and 
 (iii)'. —[Mr. Raynsford.]
 Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Adjourned at six minutes past Five o'clock.